The first *historical* emperor was probably Ojin (number "fifteen" on the official emperor count). The first fourteen are mythical figures, but they're still kept in the counting because (1) it would really screw up centuries of historical texts, (2) it's just got centuries of tradition, and (3) it would really piss off the whacko militant right-wingers in Japan who still want the emperor deified.

Probably. Although his dates and actual details are really up for debate.

It's frustrating as hell that Chinese history is documented out the wazoo back into the hundreds-BC, but we can't be sure about anything in Japan till around the 6th century. Domestic and external histories just don't jibe. But if you can read between the lines and really look at the history, you can *see* dynastic shifts, power base shifts, and so on -- it's not really an unbroken line.

Most of the chinese documents about early japan must be taken with a pinch of salt because:
1) The chinese would have been a little prejudiced against the barbarians to the east.
2) The people who wrote the reports would not have gone very far into japan. Just stayed around the coast.
3) Japan was tribal so you cant make sweeping judgements about the whole of japan because nat all the tribes would have been reported about.

The thing is, China kept impeccable internal records. The debate may be based on skewed views due to biases of the writers (e.g., Ssu-ma Chien) but the basic facts and dates are beyond question. When Japan tried to write it's own dynastic histories (Kojiki and Nihon Shoki) they were so full of historical BS and high fantasy stuff that they are really little better than worthless for a great portion of them.

if i remember correctly didn't the japanese not have documents for a special reason.. something about diety and only the common were allowed to document, but not allowed to document diety. therefore the emperor originally was not allowed to be written about..

i guess that went on until the 6th century, when scribes were allowed into the antechambers and such ..

I seem to remember reading that somewhere.. don't know where, when or anything else.

Then she got the last laugh when somehow we actually chose George W. Bush...

Yeah, we could have gotten that lunatic, Gore.

Tony

Hahahaha... Come on, Republicans had a choice between John McCain and GW, and you complain about Gore? And as for Gore's lunacy, I think I'd go a little crazy if I lost anything to W, even an arm wrestling match, much less a Presidential election.